PET STUDIES OF PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING - A CRITICAL REPLY TO POEPPEL

Citation
Jf. Demonet et al., PET STUDIES OF PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING - A CRITICAL REPLY TO POEPPEL, Brain and language, 55(3), 1996, pp. 352-379
Citations number
79
Categorie Soggetti
Language & Linguistics","Psychology, Experimental",Neurosciences
Journal title
ISSN journal
0093934X
Volume
55
Issue
3
Year of publication
1996
Pages
352 - 379
Database
ISI
SICI code
0093-934X(1996)55:3<352:PSOPP->2.0.ZU;2-E
Abstract
Poeppel (1996) raises a number of criticisms about the methods and rep orted results for eight studies of phonological processing from six di fferent neuroimaging laboratories. We would freely admit that valid cr iticisms of PET methodology can be made and that, like any method, it has limitations: in fact, we and others have engaged in such critical commentary (Steinmetz & Seitz, 1991: Sergent et al., 1992; Demonet, 19 95: Fiez et al., 1996a: Zatorre et al., 1996). Poeppel's analysis, tho ugh, falls far short of providing new insights into the limitations of PET methodology or the means by which future functional imaging studi es could be improved. Many of Poeppel's criticisms derive from a failu re to understand some of the fundamental issues which motivate functio nal imaging studies, including those he reviews. However, we are grate ful to our critic inasmuch as he offers us the challenge to clarify ou r positions on important aspects of our experimental design, analysis, and interpretation. In our discussion of these issues, we begin with a general commentary, followed by specific comments from individual au thors. (C) 1996 Academic Press, Inc.